search this blog

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Corded Ware women more mobile than their men (Sjögren et al. 2016)


From a new paper at PLoS ONE on the diet and mobility of Corded Ware (CW) people in Central Europe (emphasis is mine):

Regarding the formation of the CW, some archaeologists point out the contribution of different regions to the material set of the "CW-network", while others note similarities with the steppe, in particular with the Yamnaya culture, as a possible area of origin. This is based on similarities in burial rituals. Some authors have suggested that this culture practiced a form of mobile pastoralism, which spread towards the west through migration and/or cultural influence, and gave rise to the CW. In the process, Indo-European language would also have spread over Europe [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Recently, these hypotheses have gained support from aDNA studies of Yamnaya and CW burials. Allentoft et al [8] and Haak et al. [9] show that a genetic transformation took place in areas where previous Neolithic DNA was heavily reduced and complemented by Yamnaya DNA. This new genetic presence was lasting and provided much of the genetic material for contemporary European populations. There is increasing evidence for some kind of population reduction or crisis toward the end of the middle Neolithic facilitating this introduction of new genes (e.g. [10]) and recent research has documented the presence of plague among Yamnaya and Corded Ware individuals [11], which may have spread among Neolithic populations prior to the migrations.

...

The number and proportion of females with distinctive strontium isotope ratios is notable and suggests that women were more mobile than males in CW society. Such evidence fits well with recent genetic information documenting more varied haplogroups among CW females [14]. Müller et al. [2] suggest female exogamy as a means of maintaining lineage identify in the face of rapid, long-distance mobility. Haak et al. [25] also reported genetic and Sr isotope ratio differences between males and females at Eulau, Germany, suggesting female exogamy. The fact that such a difference is identifiable at all also suggests that males were largely stationary, at least in the sense that they were mostly born, raised and buried in the same locality. We suggest that this reflects a stable exogamic system where women moved to their husband’s settlements, existing at Bergrheinfeld for several generations. As no distinctions in burial treatment were associated with incoming women, either the exogamic exchange involved only CW groups, or incoming women were completely integrated into CW society.


Citation...

Sjögren K-G, Price TD, Kristiansen K (2016) Diet and Mobility in the Corded Ware of Central Europe. PLoS ONE 11(5): e0155083. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155083

See also...

Female mobility and exogamy as the main drivers of foreign admixture during the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age shift in Central Europe (Knipper et al. 2017)

94 comments:

Atriðr said...

Tangential to this, Indo-Aryan caste rules established female mobility (caste) by husband caste. I.e. Brahmin male married to other caste female allowed; Brahmin female would lose caste status (if allowed).

Also, see countless fairy tales for upward mobility of females through marriage/love with royalty. Taboo in other direction.

FrankN said...

Pottery is typically associated with the female domain (cooking, pickling etc.), though the "beakers" may in principle also relate to specific male drinking rituals. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to assume that "corded" pots spread with the mobile females. This assumption gains support from the study's description of the sites studied (emphasis is mine):

Altdorf: "The skeleton was identified as an adult female, accompanied by a large beaker, a flint blade and a few animal bones."

Bergrheinfeld: "Pots were only found with females and children, while stone axes were found with adult males."

Lauda-Königshofen: "Stone axes were restricted to males, pottery to females, while other artifacts were common to both sexes."

This makes it problematic to try to tie R1a/b to corded ware. Stone (Battle) Axes, as male symbol, are of course another issue, but here we are geographically getting into yDNA I terrain. Moreover, those axes appear to be a specific Fennoscandian / Central German phenomenon, absent from CW in Saxony or Poland (not sure about the Baltics and Fatyanovo in this respect)

Note also: "Some information regarding potential homelands might be available, particularly for the 3 high 87Sr/86Sr values in the females from Lauda-Königshofen. These values ranged between 0.712 and 0.714. There are of course various parts of Western and Central Europe where such values might be encountered, the nearest in Baden-Württemberg or eastern Bavaria. The steppe areas generally exhibit values lower than 0.712, as noted above." Such high Sr values point to old gneiss and granites, which are a/o widespread in the German low mountain ranges, South Sweden, and glacial deposits of Scanidnavian origin in parts of the CE plain.

Otherwise, note that the map (Fig. 1) is outdated and overplays the range of CW and related cultures. Areas that received only little CW/ Battle Axe influence, typically not more than sparse finds after 2500 BC, and/or a direct, smooth transition from FB/GAC to BB include:
- Western Coastal Netherlands (Vlaardingen Culture)
- Rhineland and Rhein-Main ("Western Beakers")
- Norhtern Harz/ Upper Middle Elbe/ Eastern Lower Saxony (Schönfeld Group, with outreach also into Elbe-Saale and northern Saxony)
- Berlin-Potsdam Area
- IIRC, most of inland Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (Pit-Comb Ware)

Davidski said...

@Frank

Enough with the crazy talk. I don't have the time or patience to constantly correct the stupid shit being written in the comments here.

Corded Ware males were overwhelmingly R1a, with a large EHG/ANE component that is clearly linked to Y-DNA R, and they're also obviously in large part identical to Yamnaya from near the Volga (~70% the same).

So their male ancestors moved west from near the Caspian Sea somewhere, where R1a has already been found in a Khvalynsk Culture context, and picked up some local women along the way. Hence their ~20 Neolithic farmer component.

Rob said...

So the CWC 'conquest' was effected by women ?
;)

Davidski said...

@Rob

So the CWC 'conquest' was effected by women?

You're confusing population migration with female exogamy.

Rob said...

No i was trying to make a funny

Rob said...

Unless their map is not accurate, I had not registered how few Corded Ware groups there were in Poland ? Still mostly GAC & TRB groups as late as 2200 BC, according to latest RC dates.

Karl_K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rokus said...

Female exogamy does not mean that CW or other PIE related cultures weren't choicy in their reproductive wives. There was a notable shift in contemporary mtDNA towards a new signature that points to an as for now yet unsampled region. However, the prevalence of certain mtDNA H strains is striking and may even indicate a pre-Neolithic Atlantic origin.

Olympus Mons said...

Guys,
What are you saying?
It does not matter if it were R1b, R1a, J... women were a commodity. You steal cattle, you steal axes, arrows... and you steal women. And they bear your children, and your daughter is not a slave anymore and your granddaughter... who is the Mother F*cker coming for her?! they will crack your head open. ... so, just humans.


Olympus Mons said...

Davidsi,
R1a "Khvalynsk Culture contex" - help. where can I see that? any link?

Davidski said...

The Khvalynsk Men

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/the-khvalynsk-men.html

Rokus said...

women were a commodity. You steal cattle, you steal axes, arrows... and you steal women
Probably, though not necessarily for the ones destined for reproduction. Current mtDNA homogeneity on European level apparently proves this simple assumption wrong.

Olympus Mons said...

@Rokus,
Please elaborate. thanks.

Davidski said...

Rokus,

I'm yet to see convincing evidence of pre-Neolithic mtDNA H on the Atlantic fringe.

And it's not like when these women were acquired, either through arranged marriages or kidnapping, that they had their mtDNAs tested.

Most probably reproduced, but some did a lot better than others, and this might be linked to mtDNA H, if it's a marker that provides an advantage. I believe the process is called natural selection.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

There's a good amount of H in Germany, Hungary, and Ukraine, from what's available to us. Even H3 and H1 in Germany before Atlantic Megalith takes off.

Grey said...

"women were a commodity. You steal cattle, you steal axes, arrows... and you steal women"

unrelated women maybe. related women were important for alliance building.

Grey said...

"alliance building"

an example hbdchick rustled up from renaissance Italy

(IIRC)

4 extended families: A B C D

50% of A's and B's children were married together and 25% each with C's and D's children

50% of C's and D's children were married together and 25% each with A and B

so you got two tightly related family pairs glued together by DNA to make a 4 family group

Krefter said...

@Chad,
"There's a good amount of H in Germany, Hungary, and Ukraine, from what's available to us. Even H3 and H1 in Germany before Atlantic Megalith takes off."

Also, Basque and Danish H and H1/H3 are completely differnt. They have hardly any or no common ancestors in the last 5,000 or even 8,000 years. There still could have been West>East migration. H was never uniformed force and single lineage after 30,000 years ago, but I don't know how it became popular everywhere.

Krefter said...

@Davidski,

It's important to remember there's a trend of mega lineages in Bronze age Europe, that make it appear admixture was strictly EHG male and other female. 90%+ of Yamnaya didn't have R1b-Z2103 because admixture was always EHG male/CHG female, but because one EHG lineage got lucky. The same is true for R1b-P312 in BBC, R1a in CWC, Z94 in Sintashta.

Look at I1 in Scandinavia. It's a local lineage that became popular like R1a and R1b lineages. It doesn't mean admixture was usually EEF male and Steppe female.

There's huge amounts of EHG mtDNA in Yamnaya and the R1a Z93 brothers. There's huge amounts of EHG and Steppe mtDNA in modern Europeans especially Balts.

We don't see the same gender bias mtDNA/Y DNA trends in Bronze age Europe as we do in Latin America. In Latin America we see a diverse array of Spanish Y DNA but we don't see a diverse array of EHG Y DNA in Bronze age Europe. Describing the admixture as strictly Male this and Female that is simplistic. It could have definitely usually been male this and female that but a good amount of the time it wasn't. That'd be the more accurate way to word the sex-bias admixture.

André de Vasconcelos said...

Unrelated to the topic, although we can get a small glimps of the past, but there's this, published today.

"A European Mitochondrial Haplotype Identified in Ancient Phoenician Remains from Carthage, North Africa"
Apparently the man in question, a Pheonician from circa 500BC, had mtDNA U5b2cl and "Iberian ancestry".

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155046



Sorry for the off topic, but I supposed some of you might be interested in it.
Cheers.

FrankN said...

@Dave: "Corded Ware males were overwhelmingly R1a.."

Not initially, i.e. before ca. 2500 BC. To the extent Ancestral Journeys can be trusted (I didn't check the sources), we have, from the sites mentionned in the Sjögran e.a. study:
- Tiefbrunn RISE 434: P1 (which can be everything, including Villabruna-related, or Iberia_EN V88);
- Tiefbrunn RISE 436: CT
- Bergrheinfeld RISE 446: R1a1a1

Unfortunately, no migration analysis is available for Tiefbrunn, and the study also doesn't specify whether RISE 446 is among the "local" males from Bergrheinfeld, or of those two males among the five woman bearing a non-local Sr isotope signature. Anyway, for the area in question, Southern Germany, we are currently talking about 33% R1a.

Elsewhere, prior to 2.500 BC we have:
- Oblaczkowo, PL [RISE1]: R1b
- Jagodno, PL: G, and J or I (both seem somewhat unsecure)
- Viby, SE [RISE94]: R1a1 (Battle Axe Culture)
- Eulau, DE: R1a1 [3 samples, most likely directly related (Father/son), massacred]

Counting Eulau as 1 sample, that yields 40% R1a when including Swedish Battle Axe.

Finally, from around 2500 BC (a time when CW was already marginalised by other cultures, most notably BB), we have all those samples from Esperstedt. They turned out as 1 P1, 1 R1b, and 6 R1a. That is indeed "overwhelmingly R1a" - in one village graveyard that was in use from ca. 2500-1700 BC, with the a/m samples representing at least 3, possibly more generations. A good argument for patrilocality, but quite problematic for inferring the overall genetic profile of (epi-)CW.

"..they're also obviously in large part identical to Yamnaya from near the Volga (~70% the same). I doubt the 70%. The figures I have seen elsewhere are more in the 30-50% range, and substantially influenced by the Esperstedt data which most likely isn't representative (obviously not for Polish CW).
In any case, Yamnaya was "overwhelmingly" R1b, so the genetic linkage to CW must have come via the female, not the male side. And as concerns R1a- there is little doubt of it being an EHG marker (Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov, Karelia). But there are several routes from Karelia to Germany and South Sweden. Khvalynsk is one of them, albeit quite a detour, and without any further Yamnaya linkage. Shorter and more direct would be the way via the Smolensk area (R1a at Serteya, 4000 BC), which also happens to be a mid 4th mBC contact zone between GAC and East European Forest Cultures. A maritime path into Southern Sweden (Battle Axe Culture) is also anything but unlikely, sespecially when considering the fact that Motala shares some mtDNA with Mesolithic Karelia.

FrankN said...

Now, let's have a look at the mtDNA that makes their first recorded entrance in Neolithic Central Europe with CW:

- I (Eulau, also BB Kromsdorf and several Unetice samples): Presumed West Asian origin. Present in Yamnaya (Kirovgrad), Catacomb (Tetcani, MD), Srubnaya and Poltavka. Eupedia furthermore mentions Iberia Chalcolithic in this respect. Peaks today in Lemkos (SE Poland) and on the island of Krk (11%), with shares above 3% reported for Norway, Denmark, the British Isles, Finmisterre, Navarre, and Var (S. France). Originally East Balkans (how else did it get to Krk, also Var?), mediated westwards via Cardial Pottery, eastwards via CT?

- U4 (Tiefbrunn RISE 436, Karsdorf etc.) Part of the WHG/SHG/EHG continuum (Störa Förvar 6850 BC, Bad Dürrenberg 6850 BC, Kunda Culture, Lithuania, 6350 BC). Khvalynsk, Ust-Tartas, Yamnaya I0231, but also occasional MN/Chalcolihic Iberian finds.

- U5a: As above. Les Closeaux 10 ka BP, Blätterhöhle 8600 BC, possibly Gough's Cage, Chekalino (RUS) 7800 BC, Störa Förvar, then Khvalynsk, Yamnaya, Catacomb etc., but also Monte Canelas (POR) 3000 BC. Obviously, here, as with U4, deeper phylogenic analysis is required to clarify the geographic source of the immigrating CW woman (Scandinavia, E Baltics, Iberia, "Steppe").

- Specific, rare H subclades
(a) H10e (Eulau): Otherwise only reported from Bom Santo (POR) 3735 BC
(b) H2a1 (Eulau): Also found in Khvalynsk (I0122)
(c) H6a1a (Esperstedt): No correspondence. H6a1b in Yamnaya Samara (I0444)
(d) H4a1 (Quedlinburg): Association to CW is questionable (mixed CW/BB burial context). H4a1 has otherwise only been reported from Spanish and Portuguese Cardial Pottery.

Hmm.. Looks like women immigrated from everywhere. H2a1 and H6a1a may be "Caucasian" (note H6a1a1a as Askenazi marker). H4a1 and H10e point to Iberia. Intriguingly, they come (a) from a time when BB started to replace CW, (b) locations linked to the Schönfeld Culture that has evidence of a smooth FB/GAC - BB transition with little CW interference, and (c) the area (Quedlinburg) that has so far yielded the closest aDNA proxy for Irish BB (Rathlin 1). People from the Northern Harz raiding Western Iberia for women doesn't can probably be ruled out here. Instead, I see an Atlantic maritime trade network emerging that may have been fostered through long-range marital alliances. mtDNA I, whatever its origin and early spreading pattern, seems to belong here as well.

Otherwise, we are talking U4/U5a, which may represent everything from Mesolithic continuity (Blätterhöhle, Westfalia), SHG (Ertebölle/ Nordic FB) or EHG (Narva) intrusion, Iberian contact, and "Steppe".

And on the male side, we have R1b, in Central Europe since at least Villabruna, in Iberia (V-88) since at least the EN, in Central Europe possible since FB (R1, Baalberge Culture, Quedlinburg, I0559), and - yes - also "overwhelmingly" in Yamnaya. All these sources are more or less plausible. But before we speculate any further on this -
might I ask you, Dave, or anybody else, to analyse the backward chain Rathlin1<- BB Quedlinburg a bit further, namely for

(a) whether that Quedlinburg BB (I0805) is most closest related to (i) Polish CW (RISE1), (b) Yamnaya, or (iii) the a/m Baalberge Culture I0559 from Quedlinburg, and

(b) how close all of the a/m relate to Villabruna.

andrew said...

The map shows Corded Ware farther west than I had remembered.

FrankN said...

@Andrew, Rob: Here are the "official" distribution maps for CW and for Single Grave Culture as published by the Halle Museum of Prehistory:

http://www.museum-digital.de/san/singleimage.php?objektnum=36828&imagenr=44328
http://www.museum-digital.de/san/singleimage.php?objektnum=36852&imagenr=44480

That Museum, closely linked to the Saxony-Anhalt Archeological Service, is Haak's home base, and the source of most of the CW data we are discussing here. The mapping stems from 2011, and updates the 2009 Müller map that has been re-drawn in the Sjögren study and linked by Dave. Localised maps for the Elbe-Saale region, with individual findspots, are also available on their home page.
To which extent CW and Single Grave are related and may be subsumed under the same heading seems to be an ongoing debate in German Archeology. Müller (Kiel) is a proponent of the integrative approach. The Halle Museum regards both as separated, as is also done in Hecht's (2005) standard monography on "Schnurkeramisches Siedlungswesen" (CW settlement patterns), which is still the most comprehensive assessment of CW in Central Europe available. I haven't yet fully understood what's behind that debate aside from the lack of the eponymous Corded Ware in Single Grave burials. Single Grave aDNA, should it ever become available, might help a better understanding of both Culture's closeness or distinctiveness.

For reference, since I have mentionned them a couple of times, I also add the map of the Schönfeld Culture, which wasn't CW, but instead emerged out of FB/GAC, more specifically the Elbe-Havel Culture. Note the offshoots into Bohamia/Moravia/Slovakia, and to what was then the North Sea Coast of Holstein - these guys were almost certainly long-distance traders (as GAC was before them).
http://www.museum-digital.de/san/singleimage.php?objektnum=36935&imagenr=44699

Grey said...

off-topic (apols)

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/05/the-astonishing-age-of-a-neanderthal-cave-construction-site/484070/

Davidski said...

@Frank

Tiefbrunn RISE 434: P1 (which can be everything, including Villabruna-related, or Iberia_EN V88)

It's not everything. It's most certainly R1a. See here.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQaU54RWc0eEV2WUU/view?usp=sharing

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/101-ancient-eurasian-genomes-allentoft.html

Davidski said...

And is there any reason you keep ignoring the Khvalynsk R1a? You know, the one that was M459* and from a population and culture related to both Corded Ware and Yamnaya.

Kinda important, maybe.

Krefter said...

@FrankN,

"I doubt the 70%. The figures I have seen elsewhere are more in the 30-50% range, and substantially influenced by the Esperstedt data which most likely isn't representative (obviously not for Polish CW)."

Several methods say 70-80%. I can name D-stats, F4-Stats, TreeMix, and PCA. Corded Ware was an immigrant population in Northern and Central Europe, there's no doubt about it. We have to view them that way, because their 20-30% non-Steppe is probably from the Balkans and Ukraine.

"In any case, Yamnaya was "overwhelmingly" R1b, so the genetic linkage to CW must have come via the female, not the male side. "

You're making the same mistake David did in not remembering that 90% of Bronze age European Y DNA is from a handful of Neolithic men. Yamnaya's R1b-Z2103 father lived not long before or after 4000 BC. The same is true for Corded Ware's R1a father.

It's very possible Yamnaya and Corded Ware descend from the same Eneolithic population(men and women) who had a mix of R1b and R1a(and other Y DNA), and one family who went west became dominated by a single R1a lineage and one who stayed east became dominated by a single R1b lineage. Our Eneolithic Samara genomes are a perfect match for this common ancestor of Yamnaya and Corded Ware, because they had that mix of R1b and R1a.

"Otherwise, we are talking U4/U5a, which may represent everything from Mesolithic continuity (Blätterhöhle, Westfalia), SHG (Ertebölle/ Nordic FB) or EHG (Narva) intrusion, Iberian contact, and "Steppe"."

Autosomal DNA confirms a Steppe origin. It's no coincidence both pop up at a high frequency in Germany for the first time ever with Corded Ware and Bell beaker. It's because of EHG-heavy Steppe migration.

Sure, there was EHG/ANE in Scandinavia and maybe East/Central Europe since the Mesolithic, but those Mesolithic populations made little impact on modern inhabitants. No fits as being largely descended of the Motala HGs. A brand new type of ancestry related to Mal'ta boy and Native Americans was introduced to Europe in the Bronze age, all the evidence has been pointing towards this ever since we got Otzi's genome in 2012. Just accept it man.

Rob said...

@ Frank

yes those maps are more precise, and paint a more nuanced picture than the less-resolved 'blobs' most would be accustomed to.


CWC and Single-Grave look very North(-east) European to me. And I agree with your observation given that we know R1a was already present in the east Baltic since 7000, and that the economic profiles of CWC differed markedly from Yamnaya, any direct links are unlikely, and the autosomal affinities of the 2 groups go back to a much earlier ancestral groups, like Bug-Dniesterian and other such Neolithic groups of Eastern Europe.

Davidski said...

Corded Ware are basically 70% Yamnaya. It is what it is. Shared Neolithic ancestry can't explain this. Even shared Khvalynsk ancestry is a stretch considering the stats.

And there was certainly no R1a-M417 in the East Baltic until the Corded Ware males got there.

Rob said...

By shared "Neolithic ancestry" I mean the putative EE type which was dissimilar to the classic LBK of central Europe & northern Balkans. Eastern European 'Neolithic' was basically EHG with some admixture & acculturation. But if you state that even Khvalynsk is too much of a stretch, then fine, but for now I'll keep an open mind to other possibilities until we get western Yamnaya aDNA.

Krefter said...

@Rob,
"CWC and Single-Grave look very North(-east) European to me.

They're not similar because of common ancestry it's because of direct decent!! For pete's sake man open your eyes.

Saying Single Grave looks very North European is like saying Mexicans look very Spanish. Mexicans are part Spanish and North Europeans are part Steppe.

"And I agree with your observation given that we know R1a was already present in the east Baltic since 7000, and that the economic profiles of CWC differed markedly from Yamnaya, any direct links are unlikely, and the autosomal affinities of the 2 groups go back to a much earlier ancestral groups, like Bug-Dniesterian and other such Neolithic groups of Eastern Europe."

I'm speechless. Giving stupid ideas that aren't mainstream doesn't make you scientific it makes you stupid. I'm so tired of you non-mainstream posters posting crap and feeling good about yourselves.

FrankN said...

@Dave: I couldn't find any reference to Tiefbrunn RISE434 being R1a in the Allentoft paper or its SI, also not in your related blogpost (I have searched all 728 comments for "Tiefbrunn" and for "434", no matches). Could you please provide more specific evidence, arguments, links atl?

".. is there any reason you keep ignoring the Khvalynsk R1a?" I am not ignoring it, and I never did. Just re-read my post above:

"And as concerns R1a- there is little doubt of it being an EHG marker (Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov, Karelia). But there are several routes from Karelia to Germany and South Sweden. Khvalynsk is one of them, albeit quite a detour, and without any further Yamnaya linkage. Shorter and more direct would be the way via the Smolensk area (R1a at Serteya, 4000 BC), which also happens to be a mid 4th mBC contact zone between GAC and East European Forest Cultures. A maritime path into Southern Sweden (Battle Axe Culture) is also anything but unlikely, sespecially when considering the fact that Motala shares some mtDNA with Mesolithic Karelia."

The issue is that you are too much focusing on Khvalynsk, ignoring other aDNA (unfortunately only uniparental, not autosomal) which shows that most of the "Steppe" stuff has been around Germany & the Baltics long before Yamnaya and Khvalynsk. And you are also ignoring, in spite of various comments by myself as well as from Rob, that the "Steppe" northern expansion, if there ever was one, was predated by a well archeologically evidenced southward GAC expansion, which may have been the origin of "Steppe" R1a, and especially R1b.

This doesn't rule out that some, maybe most of the CHG ancestry made its way into Central Europe via Yamnaya and related cultures, especially via from these cultures. However, we still lack aDNA from Michelsberg, Nothern/Eastern Funnelbeakers, GAC, Narva Culture, NEE Forest Cultures etc. For the last one, at least we have R1a from a time (Serteya, Upper Dvina, 4000 BC) when Yamnaya, or any other "kurgan" culture was still far out of sight, but otherwise we can't tell how much EHG-admixed those cultures already were in the 4th mBC.
After Villabruna, any further attempts to declare R1b as exclusively Steppe are moot. I think it is high time to take a closer look at those "proto-R1" EN/MN samples such as Derenburg-Meerenstieg II F*(xG,H,I,J,K), and of course the Quedlinburg I0559 R1 (xR1b1a2, R1a1a).

Corded Ware are basically 70% Yamnaya.: Your K10 has Tiefbrunn RISE 436 as 30% EEF, 14% WHG, 7% NE Asian. Mind running some stats against Yamnaya on it, to confirm the above statement? What about Esperstedt I1540 (R1a1), with 35% EEF, 26% WHG, 9% CHG? And IIRC, Alberto a few weeks ago demonstrated that Estonian_CW RISE00 (24% EEF, 21% WHG) looked extremely "western". That whole "Yamnaya-meme" looks like an extreme oversimplification of far more complex and regionally differentiated patterns to me.

@Krefter" Autosomal DNA confirms a Steppe origin" .. of the Bätterhöhle U5a 8600 BC, Bad Dürrenberg U4 6850 BC, Paimogo/Por [PM 15079] U4 3000 BC? Sources?

FrankN said...

Correction: In my previous post, it is meant to read:

"This doesn't rule out that some, maybe most of the CHG ancestry made its way into Central Europe via Yamnaya and related cultures, especially via females from these cultures."

Davidski said...

@Frank

This is from the paper.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/fig_tab/nature14507_SF6.html

This is from the authors of the paper.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQaU54RWc0eEV2WUU/view?usp=sharing

Here's a list of the most reliable Y-DNA classifications from Corded Ware and very similar/closely related groups.

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/badasses-of-bronze-age-analysis-of.html

So you're really not making any sense with your posts here.

bellbeakerblogger said...

As a side note to the controversial and unprobable (IMO) pre-Neolithic haplogroup H in Iberia, there is also a new isotope study on the diet and mobility during the transition to the Portuguese Neolithic. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=10325403&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0003598X1600034X

The last two sentences of the abstract are particularly interesting. It adds yet another layer to my skepticism about some of the early DNA papers. In the end, I suspect we'll have spear-chuckers and farmers, and they'll be night and day.

FrankN said...

@Dave: So you are saying that Allentoft e.a. in fact identified RISE434 (P1) and RISE436 (CT) from Tiefbrunn as R1a, but didn't publish it explicitly as such, for which reasons ever? Seems a bit strange to me, but, as I lack the expertise for a definitive judgement from the identified markers, I take this as evidence at par with the R1 allegedly found in one of these Egyptian Pharaohs.

Which leaves us with G, and I/J found in Polish CW. Here is the respective publication:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235961191_Assessment_of_late_Neolithic_pastoralist's_life_conditions_from_the_Wroclaw-Jagodno_site_SW_Poland_on_the_basis_of_physiological_stress_markers

Rather than delving deeper into the DNA determination, which apparently also bears some question marks, let me highlight a few issues related to the thread opener:

1. At least one of the buried died, at 16-18 years of age, from a stone axe impact on his head. The second one, 18-20 years old, has too little of his cranial preserved for any judgement. His incomplete skeleton shows lower limb damage.

2. Diet: Isotope ratios align fairly well with the Bavarian ones: 10.5% delta 15N, -20.6% delta 13C, almost exactly where Bergrheinfeld females with stronger plant-based diet plot, pretty close to the median for German LBK, and a far lower share of animal protein than during the early Polish medieval (Giecz) or the Danish Mesolithic. In spite of their young age, both had caries, another indicator of a substantially cereal-based diet. So far on CW as pastoralist nomads...

3. Health: While no pathogens could be identified, both individuals showed strong signals of growth retardation during childhood. At 158-160 cm, the individual from Grave 1 was among the lowest recorded Neolithic to EBA males. Typical Neolithic average body heights range betweeen 165 and 169 cm, though the Brzesc Kujawski group of the Lengyel culture also had low body heights of only some 161 cm in average. The low body height is attributed to weaning stress (change from mother milk to a cereal-based diet), and regular periods of childhood malnutrition (pre-harvest), possibly enhanced by diarrhea or parasites. At juvenile age, nutritional/ health conditions improved.

@BBB: That Portuguese result is mirrored by similar findings for the PPN in the Levante, Nordic Funnelbeakers, the Dutch Vlaardingen Culture, and, of course, reversal to a fishing-foraging lifestyle in Swedish Pitted Ware. Instead of "spear-chuckers and farmers", however, I'd rather talk about "net-throwing horticulturalists, farmers, and hunter-pastoralists". Especially the former, with the fish/ seal/ oysters/ aquatic birds/ hazelnut/ sloe subsistence system prevailing between coastal Portugal, Norway, and Estonia (with partly differing focus, also around the Mediterranean) well into Viking times has too often been overlooked, be it in relation to its demographic potential, or technologically (boat building, fish traps, birch tar, navigation/ astronomy, etc.).

Davidski said...

Frank, are you able read a bar graph, like this one from the Allentoft et al. paper, which shows all of the male Corded Ware samples as R1a (4), R1b (1) and R1?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/fig_tab/nature14507_SF6.html

And are you able to read a spreadsheet like this one from the Mathieson et al. paper showing 5/7 R1a among the Central_LNBA Corded Ware samples?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v528/n7583/extref/nature16152-s2.xlsx

Corded_Ware_Germany:I1532 M R1a
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1534 M R1b
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1536 M R1a
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1538 M R1a
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1540 M R1a
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1542 M P1
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1544 M R1a

How are you not able to comprehend that the vast majority of the Corded Ware males tested to date, including those from the earliest burials, belong to R1a?

What's the real problem here? Surely it can't be a lack of data, so what is it?

Rob said...

@ Krefter

I wrote; "And I agree with your observation given that we know R1a was already present in the east Baltic since 7000, and that the economic profiles of CWC differed markedly from Yamnaya, any direct links are unlikely, and the autosomal affinities of the 2 groups go back to a much earlier ancestral groups, like Bug-Dniesterian and other such Neolithic groups of Eastern Europe."

To which you replied "I'm speechless. Giving stupid ideas that aren't mainstream doesn't make you scientific it makes you stupid. I'm so tired of you non-mainstream posters posting crap and feeling good about yourselves. "

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but then again, i don't think you know what you're trying to say most of the time. But, first off, I'm not trying to be cute or 'clever'. The reality is that the origins of CWC have been & continue to be debated, so if there is a mainstream, that it's "no consensus". All we're trying to do is explore all the reasonable possibilities for its origins. I'm aware what you *think* the aDNA tells us, but I can tell you now, CWC did not come from the Samara valley, unless they had a massive underground tunnel. But I suspect that you won't be able to envisage this until future studies encompass a wider spectrum of aDNA data .

* "Saying Single Grave looks very North European is like saying Mexicans look very Spanish. Mexicans are part Spanish and North Europeans are part Steppe. "

Yep. Another Krefter gem.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

result: Mbuti Iberia_MN Bell_Beaker_GermanyM Bell_Beaker_GermanyF 0.0131 4.632 25464 24806 459400
result: Mbuti Esperstedt_MN Bell_Beaker_GermanyM Bell_Beaker_GermanyF 0.0068 1.883 25905 25552 459722
result: Mbuti Iberia_EN Bell_Beaker_GermanyM Bell_Beaker_GermanyF 0.0094 3.227 26299 25811 476512
result: Mbuti LBK_EN Bell_Beaker_GermanyM Bell_Beaker_GermanyF 0.0093 3.865 28281 27757 506627
result: Mbuti Hungary_EN Bell_Beaker_GermanyM Bell_Beaker_GermanyF 0.0087 3.538 26989 26522 485412

Corded women in Beaker, my ass!

That Baalberge sample is the worst one and quite useless.

BTW, Yamnaya Samara I0443 is apparently Y410, or pre-L51, according to Genetiker. So, just give it time. It'll show up in Yamnaya.

Karl_K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Coldmountains said...

@Rob

What is your point here?. CWC is not native to Central and most of North Europe and please show some hard evidences to show the opposite and not just some academic snobbery and subjective opinions. All ancient genomes so far point to an eastern and steppe origin of CWC so Samara is a good guess but nobody is saying that we know exactly from where CWC is originally from.

Rob said...

@ Cold Mountains

Please quote me saying CWC is native to Central Europe .......?
Do you know where the Baltic is ? Do you know where the Bug-Dniester culture was ?
Last i checked they were in Eastern Europe.

Now, I'm not saying CWC came from Lithuania, but given the questionable presence of *direct* links between CWC and Yamnaya, then we should entertain the possibility that a their autosomal affinities, nay "identity", relates to a period before Yamnaya. However, I also wrote that west Yamnaya aDNA could alleviate any lingering doubts, did I not ?

So you too have misunderstood a very simple tenet and made silly straw -man arguments.

huijbregts said...

@ Chad
These are impressive Dstats.
Are your Bell_Beakers averaged? Or are they specific individuals; if so, which ones?

@ Davidsky
When you publish a new sheet, could you also split Bell_Beaker_Germany in M and F? Preferable in Dstats_2, which seems more European centered.

Davidski said...

I can't. There's not enough high quality Beaker samples yet.

Coldmountains said...

@Rob

So how do you know that CWC is definetly not from Samara? I am not saying that they are from there but how you can exclude that? Anyways it is absolutely irrelevant if Corded Ware is directly derived from Yamnaya or not because Yamnaya was not the first Proto-PIE culture. Hardly anyone here is saying that CWC is from Yamnaya it is obviously not derived from there not just because of different Y-DNA but they are different in many other ways. But CWC has a lot of Yamnaya-like admixture absent prior to the Indo-European migration and Davidski showed various times that they are genetic links between Eneolithic Samara and CWC for example. Khvalynsk had both R1a and R1b so we have to be open to the theory that Yamnaya and CWC are derived from a Proto-PIE comumunity rich in both R1a and R1b which derived cultures became dominated by either R1a and R1b because of founder effects,...

Colin Welling said...

@atrior

Also, see countless fairy tales for upward mobility of females through marriage/love with royalty. Taboo in other direction.

When was that? Aladin wanted the princess because she was rich. Cinderella never actually moved up in caste since she was originally from royalty. Disney seems to be the one promoting the idea that women can move up but the original stories are different.

Colin Welling said...

@olympus

It does not matter if it were R1b, R1a, J... women were a commodity. You steal cattle, you steal axes, arrows... and you steal women. And they bear your children, and your daughter is not a slave anymore and your granddaughter... who is the Mother F*cker coming for her?! they will crack your head open. ... so, just humans.

Ever wonder if men were the commodity when women chose men from several districts? I don't see how you just jump from the idea that women moved and therefore they had no choice...

Anyways, not matter what the dna results are most of the people here regurgitate the exact same, i.e. pre conceived, social phenomena to explain the results. Women were movers of genetics and they mostly stayed within the culture they were born into. There isn't support of a general conquering.

Colin Welling said...

Which takes me to the crux of my hypothesis. If east Yamnaya was virtually all Z2013, how could CWC derived form it ? It cant. I suggest that R1-groups, and the EHG/ CHG admixture components already existed over a broader region of eastern Europe, perhaps even non-steppe areas. I suspect CWC derived form a more northern group, yet unsampled, somewhere in the forest-steppe zones.

Rob, I'm totally with you on that point. My guess is also the forest region. The only place with solid evidence of CW migration is in central europe.

Rob said...

@ CM

I can't do justice in a short blog entry as to why I disagree with several of your assumptions, which are no fault of yours, but are based on the more generic literature which is popularly known approaches the 'PIE question'.

Suffice to say, for now, lets divorce heuristic linguistic & cultural-historical labels -"PIE culture" - and focus on genetics and populations

At a macroscopic level, it might appear that there is continuity in the steppe from Mesolithic to Khvalysnk to Yamnaya. But is there really ? The steppe is a demographically unstable place. Even if we are seeing the replacement of one R1-something group by another, that is still replacement. The Samara HGs are a marginal & irrelevant group. They probably didn't speak IE because PIE didn't exist then. Same with Khvalynsk. Their SNP calls are x M269 & xM417, not to mention Q, and most likely represent an extinct lineages. But you'd argue they were all PIE- like anyway, right ? After all, they all threw piles of dirt over their buried. So this makes the Kurgan-like burial in 4000 BC Georgia "IE", correct?

Rather, I advance that pre-literate & demographically and social unstable communities like those on the steppe were probably linguistically labile, and prone to linguistic "drift". Which means that under a veneer of similar "kurganess' was a variety of linguistic groups. So which groups did God touch to endow them with an IE tongue ?

Naturally, we can expect things to have changed with the Yamnaya period, when a patriarchical (so it seems) structure developed on the fringe of the agricultural world, and appears to have spread throughout the entire steppe - at least its eastern aspect : the Z2013's. Brief synopsis on socio-linguistics, Lets move to genetics & population.

* How do I know CWC did not derive form Samara. Because I pay attention to detail, whilst most 'experts' here do not. The earliest RC dates for CWC are from Kuyavia and the territories of the coincident with northern sub-groups of the late Tripolje culture. To the T-C we can also place the earliest *relevant* Cord ornamented pottery. This doesn't mean that the former derived from the latter, but that is the general region to which we should date it. CWC soon rapidly appears in Germany, the Baltic and Scandinavia. The CWC groups in Russia (MDC, Balanovo, etc) are all *late* subgroups (possibly after c. 2400 BC), which means CWC spread bi-directionally from the ~ upper Dniester region. So Samara is out of the question chronologically, not to mention that the Khvalynsk culture itself ended c. 4000 BC, and was replaced by a more western culture, probably derived from a Repin offshoot.

Rob said...

* "Hardly anyone here is saying that CWC is from Yamnaya it is obviously not derived from there not just because of different Y-DNA but they are different in many other ways. "

Well read more properly. Many people have. In fact, Davidski claims CWC can't have come from anything west of the Dnieper. But for the relevant period concerned, no R1a has turned up from east of the Dnieper - its all Z2013 (a rather homogenous, non-varied population which again confirms replacement & recent founder effect in the alleged Caspian "PIE homeland".

* "But CWC has a lot of Yamnaya-like admixture absent prior to the Indo-European migration ""

Thee second part of your sentence makes little sense. There was no CWC before the hypothesized PIE invasions, so how could it have the Yamnaya like admixture ? You have mistakenly taken CWC to be *all -encompassing* of the LN-EBA east-central Europe. It is not. Other cultures like GAC and TRB continued to exist in Poland *concurrently* with CWC. The mix was even more differentiated in places like Middle Elbe -Saale (ask Frank). So really, we are mistakenly inflating the significance of CWC; all it really was another horizon added to a mosaic of LN-EBA cultures in central Europe. Who knows what GAC looked like ? TRB imaginably was still "neolithic'. These coexisted side-by-side, until one outcompeted another, with a regionally variable admixing process (yet to be determined).

But at least, you are correct in using "Yamnaya-like".

Which takes me to the crux of my hypothesis. If east Yamnaya was virtually all Z2013, how could CWC derived form it ? It cant. I suggest that R1-groups, and the EHG/ CHG admixture components already existed over a broader region of eastern Europe, perhaps even in non-steppe areas. I suspect CWC derived form a more northern group, yet unsampled, somewhere in the forest-steppe zones.

* "Khvalynsk had both R1a and R1b so we have to be open to the theory that Yamnaya and CWC are derived from a Proto-PIE community rich in both R1a and R1b "

For above reasons, it did not. Khvalynsk was a dead end. Its lineages were Q, R1b x M269, and R1a x M417. But I bet we will find M269 & M417 earlier elsewhere, further west & southwest. These groups replaced Khvalynsk, not descended from them.

Rob said...

Thanks Colin.
Sorry to re-post. (had to correct typos)

Davidski said...

@Rob

Khvalynsk was a dead end.

Come on, this is nonsense. There's nothing at all eliminating Khvalynsk as the ancestor of both Corded Ware and Yamnaya.

Davidski said...

Interesting quote from the Corded Ware paper.

The grave goods consisted of only a flint blade and a hammer-headed bone pin, laid down beside the older male. Such pins are rare in the CW of Central Europe, but common in the Pontic Steppe region where they occur in a variety of forms until they disappear around 2600 BC [38].

The paper referenced is open access here.

http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/publications/radiocarbon-dating-of-the-bronze-age-bone-pins-from-eurasian-steppe%287ce7c131-2d2c-4865-b6f6-0cf4fea28335%29.html

The pins were an invention of the Repin Culture, but hammer-headed bone pins were a specialty of Yamnaya and early Catacomb.

Rob said...

Dave
You can't invent your own history. The Khv culture ended c, 4000 BC. There is a veritable hiatus in the Samra -Volga region of up to 300 years.


You're gonna have to accommodate that into your models

Davidski said...

Sounds like bullshit. There's no way anyone can pick up a hiatus of 300 years on the steppes among highly mobile pastoralist groups with radiocarbon dating, or any sort of dating.

Gioiello said...

@ Chad Rohlfsen

“BTW, Yamnaya Samara I0443 is apparently Y410, or pre-L51, according to Genetiker. So, just give it time. It'll show up in Yamnaya”.

It seems that YFull found this sample, complete and not only intermediate, in Italy:

R-L51L51/M412/S167/PF6536 * PF6535 * CTS10373/PF6537/FGC39 * PF6414 * Y410 SNPs formed 6200 ybp, TMRCA 5800 ybp info
id:ERS257000 ITA [IT-CA]
I wrote a lot about this sample in the YFull tree from Francalacci et al. 2013/2015
ERS257000
?
?
R-L51
R-Z2118
CTS10373/PF6537/FGC39
just saying that it would have been good for my theory but that I considered a phantom sample, and the same YFull team puts a question mark in those that should have been their numbers in the Francalacci's spreadsheet.


Yamnaya
Russia
Lopatino II, Sok River, Samara [I0443/ SVP 57]
M
3300-2700 BC
R1b1a2a* (L23)
L49+, L23+, PF6399+, L150+, L1353+, PF6509+, M269+, CTS12478+, L51-, Z2105-
W3a1a

Haak 2015; Mathieson 2015; Sergey Malychev

It seems that the sample

It seems that the samples found in Eastern European aDNA aren't downstream R-Z2106, and belongs to the R-L23-Z2103 cluster. It is likely that some to-day lines descend from them, for instance R-L23-CTS7763, perhaps the same R-L23-Z2106* till R-L23-Z2109*, which has a presence in Northern and Northern-Western Europe, but I am always waiting that some proof about the same my R-L23-Z2110* and the sister clade R-L23-CTS7556 and R-L23-CTS9219, which seem have expanded from Western Europe Eastward, are found in aDNA of Eastern Europe. Thus the sample I0443, whether it had the SNP Y410, could be a line come to East with the overwhelming R-L23-Z2103 lines but not the main line which brought to R-L51*, of course not found so far, but present in the sister clade R-L23-L51-PF7589 at a percentage close to zero Eastward Italy.

Rob said...

Well there's always gonna be room for doubt, calibration issues, plateaus on the curve.

But There's also typological dating too
4000 BC coincides also with the collapse of Balkan centres on which that R1b copper Chief relied for his imported status symbols. Not to mention frequent aridity cycles which wete worse in the Caspian end of the step

Imaginably new groups and alliances swept in after some point.

Dmytro said...

Rob and Davidski:
Possibly there is a way out of this impasse if one carefully examines the work of Kotova: https://www.academia.edu/19575239/Early_Eneolithic_in_the_Pontic_Steppe

She contends on archaeological grounds that Khvalynsk was largely the creation of migrants from the Eastern Sredny Stog area...

Davidski said...

There's no impasse. I can see from the data I have that Corded Ware, Khvalynsk and Yamnaya stem from the same recent source. They're not just coincidently similar. It makes no difference how exactly they're so closely related. All that matters is that they are, which means that the origins of Corded Ware are somewhere close to the Caspian and even Caucasus.

Arguments using Y-DNA markers aren't convincing because it's obvious that paternal founder effects were common and extreme on the steppe.

Dmytro said...

"There's no impasse. I can see from the data I have that Corded Ware, Khvalynsk and Yamnaya stem from the same recent source." (Davidski) OK. Most would agree with this. Kotova certainly. The "impasse" if that is the right term is the contention that Khvalynsk is the source of the others. "It makes no difference how exactly they're so closely related. All that matters is that they are" (Davidski) Well you are most certainly entitled to your opinion. On the other hand there are a lot of people who are specifically interested in the issues which are of no interest to you. C'est la vie. Carry on. Your input is valuable.

FrankN said...

@Dave: "Frank, (..) are you able to read a spreadsheet like this one from the Mathieson et al. paper (..)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v528/n7583/extref/nature16152-s2.xlsx"


I am, but unfortunately it seems you are not. That spreadscheet shows Tiefbrunn RISE434 as P1, and RISE436 as CT, which matches the Ancestral Journeys data and is what I have been saying/quoting all the time. Now, you have some leaked information which indicate both may actually have been R1. May be, I can't judge on it. But the practice here has been to rely on officially published information, and this information can't confirm early South German CW being "overwhelmingly R1a". Early Polish CW wasn't either, as to the link posted above.

All we are then left with is those 7 Esperstedt samples listed by you: One village, 3 or more generations, some 400-900 years after CW makes its first appearance, has five out of seven samples being R1a. Is this really the kind of evidence you want to build a theory about the peopling of most of non-Mediterranean Europe on?

Let's see what we have, and don't have:

1. No reasonable Pre-CW Baseline for the CE plain and Scandinavia:
- I0172 (Esperstedt) and I0551 (Salzmünde) reflect the Salzmünde Culture, a Baden offshoot that most likely contained substantial Danubian immigration, and was violently eradicated around 3100 BC by a Bernburg/ GAC coalition;
- Baalberge Culture I0059 (R1) is, according to Chad, "quite useless" (I assume that is meant in relation to the sampling quality). I0560, also from Quedlinburg, but a bit younger (Baalberge-Bernburg transition) might be worth another try, though.
- The FB samples from Gökhem/SE reflect, as has been shown by Alberto a few weeks ago, a short-lived Michelsberg colonisation attempt that was ultimately aborted. They neither incorporate any SHG, nor provide resemblance to current Scandinavian populations.

Hence, all we have to base comparisons on is LBK_EN. From archeology, we know of various changes afterwards:
- Rössen expansion from the Alsace or further west to the Elbe,
- Michelsberg (LBK-La Hoguette-Chasseen hybrid) eastern expansion from the Paris Basin and the Rhine to the Elbe,
- Neolithisation of Swifterband/Ertebolle, leading to the emergence of Funnelbeakers,
- Pile dwelling, so far an Alpine/ NW Germnan (Dümmer Group) /Scandinavian phenomenon, taking foot in East Europe Forest cultures (Pskov area, Upper Dvina) around 3700 BC; at the same time, fish traps in Scandinavian tradition (Maglemose/ Ertebolle) make their first appearance there;
- Nordic FB southward expansion into Elbe-Saale creating the Bernburg Culture; FB influence (just trade, or more?) recorded in the Burgundian Middle Neolithic and Swiss pile dwelling cultures; FB present in N.Poland
- GAC forming in Kujawia (possibly on Lengyel substrate and under Tiszapolgar influence), and subsequently expanding westward to the Elbe-Saale, eastwards to Lithuania, Dvina and the Upper Volga, and SE-wards to Central Ukraine, with offshoots in Bohemia, Frankonia, Switzerland. E. Baltic Narva Culture, traditionally showing trans-baltic linkage to Scandinavia (Ertebolle), getting under GAC/ FB influence; Late CT incorporated into Eastern GAC; GAC cultural influence on Yamnaya.
- Bernburg/GAC by 3100 BC overrunning Salzmünde. Subsequent Bernburg expansion into Bohemia, Moravia and Upper Austria (trade-related - Slovakian copper vs. salt from Elbe-Saale?).

For all these changes, we don't have any aDNA available yet to judge their demographic impact.
-tbc-

Rokus said...

'some did a lot better than others, and this might be linked to mtDNA H, if it's a marker that provides an advantage. I believe the process is called natural selection.'
Possibly, and the same might apply to YDNA Hg R, including all current groupings R1a, R2 and R1b. I have been tossing with the idea myself. However, both mtDNA H and YDNA R have a paleolithic age. This makes some general advantage that only became apparent in the Late Neolithic at the earliest, quite incredulous to say the least.
Chandler, Sykes, and Zilhão (2005) already published results on Mesolithic mtDNA H in Portugal, there are more recent findings as well like Montserrat Hervella et al. (2012) that mentions plenty of pre-Neolithic mtDNA H, even H6 in Magdalenian Cantabria. This may be in stark contrast with eg. the findings of Fu (2016) elsewhere in Europe, though this does not disprove pre-Neolithic mtDNA H on the Atlantic fringe.
Moreover, I myself have mtDNA H52, a tiny but separate grouping that - not unlike my YDNA U106-Z18, though probably older - has a North Sea distribution. In my case both lineages have their origin in the higher Dutch glacial riverdunes - where the marshes unfortunately proved too acid to recover aDNA. I have difficulties accepting beforehand such diverted lineages must have come from some unspecified source thousands of miles away, with or without natural selection that miraculously only applied along the North Sea for these lineages, without local aDNA samples to back this up.

Fanty said...

"This makes some general advantage that only became apparent in the Late Neolithic at the earliest, quite incredulous to say the least."

If its like this, then it cant be a "general" advantage (something that is always and everywhere an advantage). Shouldnt it be something like a "special" advantage (something that is only in a very special and narrow situation an advantage and otherwise doesnt matter).

If there is a single timeframe in wich that boomed like shit. (and after that timeframe may have went back to normal)

Rob said...

@ David

"There's no impasse. I can see from the data I have that Corded Ware, Khvalynsk and Yamnaya stem from the same -recent source"

I see yove changed your tune
We have no disagreement now

That recent source could be some Eneolithic culture (4000 BC) or even earlier Dnieper -Donets (6000 BC) . I outlined my reasons as I why I doubt it was on the Volga, But Who knows ?

That's what I was all along suggesting (barring the misunderstandings of individual illiterate clowns)

Dmytro:

Thanks for the references
That's all very good work

Davidski said...

@Frank

Ancestral Journeys copied the classifications for the Allentoft et al samples from the Mathieson et al. paper. I have no idea why Jean did that, but I'm going by what's in the Allentoft et al. paper, since the samples are theirs. Fair enough?

The Allentoft et al. paper shows the following classifications for their Corded Ware males in this bar graph. Corded Ware is baCW, in case you didn't read the paper. And I know from the authors that RISE434 is one of the R1a samples. Feel free to contact them to confirm.

R1a (4), R1b (1) and R1

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/fig_tab/nature14507_SF6.html

Mathieson et al. shows the following classifications for their Corded Ware samples.

Corded_Ware_Germany:I1532 M R1a
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1534 M R1b
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1536 M R1a
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1538 M R1a
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1540 M R1a
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1542 M P1
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1544 M R1a

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v528/n7583/extref/nature16152-s2.xlsx

And then we also have these Corded Ware samples from the two Haak et al. papers.

Corded Ware, Germany, Individuals 2,3,4 R1a
Corded Ware, Germany, I0104 R1a

Do you agree that this means 11 out of 15 unrelated Corded Ware males tested to date belong to R1a?

If so, then what we have is a very high frequency of R1a among Corded Ware males, including those from the earliest burials from different parts of Germany. Do you agree?

If you don't understand what I just attempted to communicate to you, then I'm going to have to assume that there's something wrong with your comprehension skills, and ignore you from now on.

Davidski said...

@Rob

I haven't changed my tune. You seem emotionally attached to the idea that Corded Ware is from somewhere near Poland, and it's obvious that it expanded from much closer to the Caspian.

Rob said...

Fond perhaps but no special attachment

Why don't you surmise a concrete theory of CWC origins ?

FrankN said...

@Dave: Looking through the Allentoft SI, I couldn't find any list of their yDNA results. Maybe its the main paper, which is paywalled. They have sent you their results, which correspond to Ext.Data Fig. 6, but are cited differently by Mathieson, and Ancestral Journeys. What's behind that, I don't know, you apparently neither. Let's not make this a big affair, but please accept that I have been quoting generally accepted sources, not attempted any kind of trolling here. Fair enough?

Those Haak individuals 2,3,4 cited by you seem to be from his paper on the Eulau massacre:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226.long
All from the same grave, one adult 40-60 years, two infants 4-5 and 8-9 years. Probably not father and sons, as I wrongly stated, but grandfather and grandsons, but still related.

Haak's I0104 is another Esperstedt sample, on top of those 7 analysed by Mathieson e.a., raising the total Esperstedt score for CW, 2559-2050 BC to 6 R1a out of 8. I am not taken for granted that they are all unrelated. Has anybody already run IBD analyses on them?

So, no, we are not having 11 out of 15 unrelated CW samples being R1a. When accepting Allentoft's results as per their Ext.Data Fig. 6, and adding the Eulau and the two Polish samples, we have, outside Esperstedt, 5 out of 9 unrelated CW samples as R1a, plus 6 out of 8
Esperstedt ones, some of which may be related.

Now, that's still quite a lot of R1a, undoubtedly representing a major change against LBK and Baalberge (I0560, 71% AnatNeol, 24% WHG, 5% SEA acc. your K10, actually seems to be a reasonable baseline in this respect). I am with you in supposing that the CHG admix in the "Steppe", and also in CW, has mainly come via the female side. There is hardly any "Caucasian" yDNA popping up, and the little of it, e.g. yDNA T, has already been found in LBK. So, most of the EHG newly appearing with CW seems to be linked to male immigration, namely R1a. Not as elite (otherwise they wouldn't have been massacred in Eulau, other R1a graves were also anything but spectacular), just regular folks adapting to local lifestyle, as has been demonstrated for farming-oriented Bergrheinfeld. This observation also implies that we are dealing with quite a mass movement, probabaly over the course of a few centuries rather than in a sudden invasion.

Question is - when and from where did these EHG arrive. You (and the recent paperes by Haak etc.) propose Yamnaya in this respect. This is questionable from the genetic side, as Yamnaya was overwhelmingly R1b, not R1a. It is also at odds with the archeological record that shows GAC as major expansionist force putting pressure on various cultures including Baden, Narva, CT, and also Yamnaya, rather than the other way around, i.e. expansion out of the Steppe into Narva, Forest Cultures etc.

Moreover, Yamnaya, as per your K10, shows quite constant EHG/CHG ratios of ~5:4, with CHG never falling below 37.5%. This, at an assumed 70% Yamnaya share in CW as proposed by you, should have translated in CW CHG shares of 25-30%, and EG shares of 30-35%. Instead, however, we find huge variation in CW, with CHG as low as 10% (I1539, I1540, both Esperstedt, I1540 is R1a1), and EHG often above 40% (RISE435-Tiefbrunn, I1536, I1538, I1540 - all Esperstedt). This indicates that we are in fact dealing with two unrelated movements, male EHG and female CHG ingression, which only by averaging create a genetic profile similar to Yamnaya.

So, how did EHG get into CW? Of course from Karelia along the Baltic Sea, probably both via Scandinavia (SHG->Ertebolle->Funnelbeaker), and along the Southern Coast, after GAC had opened up economic, and in consequence also demographic exchange with the Narva Culture and the Forest Cultures on Upper Dvina and Volga. At least, that's my theory. So far unproven, except for the 4000 BC R1a from the Upper Dvina. Let's hope for FB / GAC/ Narva/ Forest aDNA to verify or falsify that theory.

Davidski said...

@Frank

I have no idea what the problem is, but clearly something's not working properly at your end.

Try this. Paste this link from Allentoft et al. into your browser, and tell me what you see for the baCW sample. baCW stands for Corded Ware.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/fig_tab/nature14507_SF6.html

And keep in mind that this graph only shows the Corded Ware results for baCW. It doesn't include the Battle-Axe and Single-Grave samples from Scandinavia, which are also Corded Ware and also R1a.

OK?

Rob said...

Frank

Sure we might find evidence of other haplogroups in CWC with more samples, but I think it is already clear that it was predominantly R1a- M417.

The real question is, the chronology & origin point of its dispersion. I hypothesize that M417 or pre-M417 could have habited anywhere from an arc of expanse from Poland to the Black Sea, and this region was characterized by Baltic – Black Sea interactions since as early as 5000 BC.

More proximately, CWC was catalyzed by the same line of developments as Yamnaya, drawing from the same of the ideological repertoires of which developed in the NW Black Sea & the Middle Dnieper region in the 3500- 2800 BC period. Anything much east of this was probably irrelevant.

The diversification & broadening of other inventories (eg ceramics, economic strategy) might reflect substratum effects of new areas they moved to.

Rob said...

I also agree that CWC isn't an "elite culture" ; but not because what happened in Eulau-
Conflict was a natural occurrence

Rather, it's because they were just another group within EBA Europe who didn't rule anyone but themselves

Karl_K said...

@FrankN

"Probably not father and sons, as I wrongly stated, but grandfather and grandsons, but still related."

"I am not taken for granted that they are all unrelated. Has anybody already run IBD analyses on them?"

"some of which may be related."

This is actually an interesting question. But it has technological issues. Most of these genomes are not high enough quality to say which alleles are actually homozygous. Of course you might be able to tell which alleles are heterozygous, but those are (by definition) the alleles that do not matter in IBD analysis.

In case someone doesn't know, IBD is determined by subtracting all of the impossibly IBD regions from the total. These impossible regions are where two individuals are both homozygous, but with different alleles.

You would need very accurate and highly redundant allele calling to do IBD analysis between 2 ancient samples that means anything at all, because you need to be able to say which alleles are truly homozygous.

A statistical approach might be able to suggest that two low coverage genomes were from related individuals, but I haven't seen anyone doing that.

Karl_K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Davidski said...

Are these all cousins too, sharing the same recent paternal ancestor, or what?

Battle-Axe RISE94, Sweden, 2621-2472 calBCE, R1a

Single-Grave RISE64, Denmark, 2851-2492 calBCE, R1a

Corded Ware RISE446, Germany, 2829-2465 calBCE, R1a

I reckon it's more likely that Frank is on some funky medication.

Karl_K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob said...

Karl

Is it though ?
If we go with the likely fact that there was no R1a west of the Vistula before CWC, and it suddenly appears after 2800 BC, and we know that these were kin-based, household, lineage etc societies characterized by patriarchy and female exogamy, then isn't it possible all these guys were all cousins of sorts ?

Karl_K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FrankN said...

Dave, please stop trolling me, and instead read carefully what I have written: " When accepting Allentoft's results as per their Ext.Data Fig. 6 .."? I have looked at that link, and am considering it, there is really no need for you to post it a third or a fourth time!

The fact that the three Eulau individuals were related has been stated by Haak himself, see, e.g., p.41 of the SI to Haak/Lazarides 2015.

I couldn't find any archeological description of the Esperstedt settlement, they apparently only uncovered the graveyard. But we know from Bergrheinfeld that CW settlements used to be rather small, in Bergrheinfeld it was 4 houses, ca. 25-30 inhabitants. If you sample such a community's graveyard over some 400 years, with the samples acc. to their C14 dating comprising at least three different generations, there is a pretty high chance that several of them may be related. Not as cousins, rather, because of patrilocality, in direct male descendence.

"Are these all cousins too, sharing the same recent paternal ancestor, or what?"
Again, read what I have written:
"that's still quite a lot of R1a, undoubtedly representing a major change against LBK and Baalberge."

Instead of constantly misinterpreting me, you might do yourself and all of us here a favour by (a) acknowledging the Polish results, which you seem to ignore so far, and (b) coming up with a plausible hypothesis how the Yamnaya R1b elite would have promoted intrusion of common R1a folk into the CE plain, while largely remaining invisible in that process.

Krefter said...

@FrankN,

People start to get rude when you you ignore the obvious and keep giving crazy ideas because they're non-mainstream. Keep in mind the academics who write these DNA papers don't agree with you. There's no point in arguing with you anymore.

FrankN said...

@Rob: "More proximately, CWC was catalyzed by the same line of developments as Yamnaya, drawing from the same of the ideological repertoires of which developed in the NW Black Sea & the Middle Dnieper region in the 3500- 2800 BC period.

Mind providing details about that "ideological repertoire"?

What I see is a lot of continuity of CE traditions:
- Beakers for shared drinking, already present with FB, plus amphora-like vessels in several subcultures (e.g. Lesser Poland, Baltics) that acc. to Furholt 2003 are reminiscent of GAC (Zlota group);
- Cord-decorated ceramic has a/o been reported from the Lithuanian Bay Coast Culture (Haffküstenkultur) for ca. 3500 BC, prior to it getting under GAC influence;
- Axes as male (status) symbols go back to LBK, they show up especially prominently with the Alpine jadeite axes deposited in Brittany, but also Danubian copper axes;
- The battle- or boat-shaped axes build on the Nordic FB perforated axe tradition. Their specific form is interpreted as imitating Danubian copper axes.
- The earliest flexed burials ("Hockerbestattung") have been found in Barum, Sweden (7010-6540 BC, Maglemosian). Further examples come from Ertebolle (Rothenklempenow, Mecklenburg), Polish LBK (Zabrdovice), and Estonian Combed Ware (ca. 3.600 BC).
- Flexed, east-west oriented (male), single burials, as typical for CW, also have a long tradition in Southern Germany (LBK Aiterhofen, Münchshofen, Michelsberg Culture in Regensburg), and the Danubian Basin.
- Finally, for socially strongly differentiated single burials below a tumulus, with axes as status symbol, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Michel_tumulus

@Krefter: What have I been ignoring in citing Haak on Eulau, presenting updqted CW distribution maps, or interpreting the higher female CW mobility demonstrated in Dave's linked article?

Rob said...

@ Karl

I was referring to within local contexts, and not the entire breadth of the CWC phenomenon. In other words, no, i don't expect a Battle Axe man from Sweden to be a relative of a CWC mane form Germany. Rather, if you look at the fine grained distribution maps, you would see that CWC occupied localised geographic clusters. I wonder then if the early founders graves and subsequent earlier generations within a localized context are relatives ? I bet you they for the most part all will be. Afterall, this was the very basic basis of CWC - an internally egalitarian, horizontally mobile society composed of households and kin lines. Have you read anything to contrary ?



Krefter said...

@FrankN,
"What have I been ignoring in citing Haak on Eulau, presenting updqted CW distribution maps, or interpreting the higher female CW mobility demonstrated in Dave's linked article"

"ignore" is a bad way to put it. "Wrong Interpretation" is a better way to put it. Here's another try: R1a existed in Eneolithic Samara just as it did in Mesolithic Karelia. The Samara Eneolithic R1a guy is more similar to Corded Ware than Karelia_HG.

Difference in Y DNA between Yamnaya and Corded Ware can be explained by founder effects/mega-lineages/no official name. Their ancestor had a mix of R1a and R1b.

The similarity in EHG/CHG ratio between Corded Ware and Yamnaya supports an Eastern origin for Corded Ware. An Eastern origin is more probable than both EHG and CHG independently migrating into Central Europe and created a population almost identical to Yamnaya.

The 2600-2900 BC R1a-Z94 Samara guy is more evidence of an Eastern origin for Corded Ware. What was R1a-M417 doing so far east so early on? A likely sceniro is R1a-M417 dominated Ukraine and maybe parts of Russia in 3000 BC while R1b-Z2103 dominated the Eastern half of European Russia.

Rob said...

@ Frank N

I meant the funerary - ideological & social domain of CWC appears to have differed from preceding central European cultures - even GAC which sees a shift from traditional "Neolithic norms", such as evidence of early specialized cattle herding. But even still, the fundamental social unit was the village (more or less still communal), whilst CWC sees a shift to individual households/ hamlets.

By 'repertoire' i was suggesting that CWC & Yamnaya appear to have emerged as the final realisation of a process of cultural transformation of communities at the steppe-farmer frontier of the Black Sea region. The pre-Yamnaya phase (which we can subsume under Repin; Nizhna Mikhailovska; etc) and as well as early 'developed Yamnaya' employ a diversity of inhumation positions, tomb construction, and funerary inventory (including a diverse ceramic category incorporating non-steppe elements - GAC, Cotofeni, Baden even). From 2900 BC onwards, there is a standardization/ homogenization, toward a tightly replicable funerary tradition (i.e a more standardized funerary kit, position, ochre treatment, mound construction). It is at this point which CWC and Yamnaya diverge - in that they chose different specific sub-sets from the broader range of options. Such differences include ochre deposits (rare in CWC, but used in Yamnaya), the character of mounds/ kurgans, and gift accompaniments (Yamnaya was rather austere, whilst CWC continued to employ a diverse range of funerary gifts - where i believe your battle-axes, various amphoras, etc, come into play). Interestingly, the eponymous Corded Ware pots are a common finding in both, and this appears to have cryztalised (again) in the zone from the Danube to the Dnieper. Classic Yamnaya lacked many grave goods, but when present, pots with corded decoration are a notable feature.

But I can;t do justice to the topic from a brief recollection.
Here are the relevant articles; see what your take is.

https://www.academia.edu/15425433/The_traits_of_Early-Bronze_Pontic_cultures_in_the_development_of_old_upland_Corded_Ware_Ma%C5%82opolska_group_and_Z%C5%82ota_culture_communities

https://www.academia.edu/12729828/_2015_A._Fr%C3%AEnculeasa_B._Preda_and_V._Heyd_Pit-Graves_Yamnaya_and_Kurgans_at_the_Lower_Danube_Disentangling_late_4th_and_early_3rd_Millennium_BC_Burial_Customs_Equipment_and_Chronology._Praehistorische_Zeitschrift_90_1-2_2015_45-113

I know these articles don;t focus on the German or Swedish CWC/ SGC burials, so so it'll be interesting to see if they differ.
And yep, I fully agree, without pre-CWC DNA from the huge gap between Germany & Samara, we're left with guarded guesses by the wise, and half-baked speculation by the impetuous ;)

Karl_K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob said...

Frank N

I recall the paper from mid- late Neolithic Poland . The implications are that the major discontinuity in the anthropological record is in the post-LBK phase (after 5000 BC); which then appears in Germany slightly later.

"Furthermore, it can be inferred that the dis- cussed change in the genetic structure of Neolithic populations in north-central Poland oc- curred earlier (in terms of absolute chronology) than suggested by Brotherton et al. [18] or Brandt et al. [17]: nine out of the 11 individuals for which haplogroups were determined (in- cluding the individual with haplogroup U5a) come from BKG settlement stage in Kuyavia, which is dated to approx. 4600/4500 to 4300 BC. " (Source: Between the Baltic and Danubian Worlds: The Genetic Affinities of a Middle Neolithic Population from Central Poland)

I suspect pre-BB and pre-CWC came from neolithicized northeast europeans ("Baltic") groups shifting progressively westward into the former LBK heartlands.

As such, I suspect that CWC and BB have little directly to do with Yamnaya or Khvalysnk "migrations" ; but were conditioned by contacts with Carpathian, Danubian and Pontic elements

Davidski said...

How and where did these westward moving Baltic groups acquire women with mtDNA sequences from Khvalynsk and Yamnaya?

Rob said...

A good question.
But it's more like the other way: khvalynsk and Yamnaya acquired mtDNA lineages from EE forest source populations, prior to the their trickling down the major river ways toward the steppe

Rob said...

There's a nice little picture here for you

http://s32.postimg.org/9o2bpyrh1/image.png

What's missing is also an arrow due west

Davidski said...

That doesn't make any sense.

I'm talking about mtDNA sequences specific to the Caucasus and Caspian Steppe. They're common in Corded Ware, Yamnaya and also present in Khvalynsk.

They first show up in Central Europe with Corded Ware. That's why Corded Ware mtDNA is distinct from that of earlier German and Polish Neolithic groups. See Fig 3. here...

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118316

Karl_K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob said...

David (& Karl)

What I mean to say is that, prior to the Neolithic in East Europe, EHG groups were more densely settled in the zones north of the steppe. The ancestors of Yamnaya and CWC "acquired" their additional mtDNA in the broad farmer- forager frontier from NW Ukraine to the Caucasus. Specifically, this interaction & settlement was more or less restricted to the Major river valleys, such as the Don, Dniester, but especially Dnieper. The final spur was c. 3300 BC, when the stepped was 'opened' probably via final economic specialization of cattle +/- horses, and the adoption of wheeled wagons frmo nearby agricultural regions.

Thus it is from one of these major river clusters where specific Yamnaya groups emerged, replaced ("succeeded" if it makes it more palatable for your vision of continuity) their earlier Mesolithic forebears in the Samara valley. Naturally, NW Ukraine is probably from where CWC specifically expanded due north to the Baltic, west to central Europe, and then east along the forest zone to Balanovo, etc, culture which is epi-Corded Ware. But note that wagons are very rare in CWC. It looks like a temperate pastoral economy, not true steppe.

Not too complex. But I perhaps confused you by initially using the term "Baltic" in describing northern Ukraine & Russia

batman said...

@ Frank

Aurignac samples are C1a. Their cousine Gravettians were C1, I, IJ*, and C1a2. Magdalenian samples were I*. That may imply that old assumptions and consequent beliefs about Indo-European origins are dead wrong. Especially since Centum/Satem are BOTH present - to describe "a hundered" - in the major Uralian language.

What remains is that the major part of Eurasian y-dna are descendants of a LCA, at the base of makrogroup (C)F, from which the main branches of GHIJKL/MNO did develop.

Since the paleolithic variants of these haplogroups seems to be extinct, The big question is if the modern versions of these haplogroups are "re-started" from a LCA at the very end of the Younger Dryas - as the surviving descendants of hg C/F started to repopulate the Eurasian continent.

Thus it's important to understand and notify that the deepest cold and the strongest, biotopical eradication of the northern hemisphere - on record - set in 5000 years after the LGM, during the Older and Younger Dryas.

The bottle-neck that finally came to define the y-dna of the present populations of Eurasia were obviously a higlhly limited number, surviving the Younger Dryas 13.000-12.000 yrs ago.

This seems to coincide with the transitional examples of the mesolithic Eurasia, such as the ones found in Villabruna, Bichon, Satsurblia, where mt-dna U5, just as y-dna G,H,I,J and K seem to find the clades that still are associated with the Caucasian phenotype.

Following the modern distribution of y-dna GHIJK (and the later R1) we find a clear-cut correspondance to the spread of the IE languages, from western Spain to eastern Siberia. There is, in other words, nothing thagt really contradicts that the IE proto-language may be of paleolithoic origin.

The 50 year old hypo that became a 'consensus' - telling everybody that the IE languages developed "within the framework of agriculture" - is o-b-v-i-o-u-s-l-y built on assumptions. Besides, the 'neolithic origin' still lacks any evidence able to substantiate this famous hypothesis.